32 wrote:There's a difference between bad-mouthing somebody (as the case in ESPN) and permanently scarring the physical representation of a man's life's work. Whether you like Bonds or not, the point is irrelevant. Desecrating something that obviously means so much to one individual is wrong. Its being needlessly cruel to somebody that Ecko, in reality, has never even met.

I'm not excusing ESPN or any other form of media that's bashed Bonds (as, I believe, they are to blame for the outcome of the vote, honestly), but its not even in the same ballpark. This would be like taking the game ball from Brett Favre's last game and branding a giant, red * into it. That's a bit f*cked up, don't you think?

Continue to wear Ecko at your own disgression. I refuse to support a product owned by somebody that will be needlessly cruel to his fellow human being purely for publicity's sake. I think its wrong and I hope Marc Ecko gets shot (no exhaggeration).

I don't think you understand how much Bonds is hated by virtually every baseball fan that doesn't root for the Giants.

Don't you think a die-hard Dodger fan or an old-school traditionalist of the game wouldn't do the same thing if given the chance? I just think you are being biased and not seeing the other perspective here. I am a Bonds fan, but even I can admit that he has tainted the game and the record to a very significant degree by cheating. I can understand how someone would want to desecrate the object that symbolizes one of the worst eras in any professional sport. Though I don't believe Marc Echo did it for any just reason rather he did it to sell more clothes.

Farve never cheated nor had a negative impact on his sport. I don't understand how you can make that comparison, it is irrelevant mainly because Farve isn't viewed as the villain of his sport that Bonds is.

32 wrote:There's a difference between bad-mouthing somebody (as the case in ESPN) and permanently scarring the physical representation of a man's life's work. Whether you like Bonds or not, the point is irrelevant. Desecrating something that obviously means so much to one individual is wrong. Its being needlessly cruel to somebody that Ecko, in reality, has never even met.

I'm not excusing ESPN or any other form of media that's bashed Bonds (as, I believe, they are to blame for the outcome of the vote, honestly), but its not even in the same ballpark. This would be like taking the game ball from Brett Favre's last game and branding a giant, red * into it. That's a bit f*cked up, don't you think?

Continue to wear Ecko at your own disgression. I refuse to support a product owned by somebody that will be needlessly cruel to his fellow human being purely for publicity's sake. I think its wrong and I hope Marc Ecko gets shot (no exhaggeration).

I don't think you understand how much Bonds is hated by virtually every baseball fan that doesn't root for the Giants.

That is unnessesary, though. They have no reason to hate him, as he has never been PROVEN to do anything wrong. I'm not going to go off on a tangent about him, but the fact that he has never been proven wrong, yet guys like Ankiel dont get as much press, even though it has been proven that they take steriods is rediculous.

32 wrote:There's a difference between bad-mouthing somebody (as the case in ESPN) and permanently scarring the physical representation of a man's life's work. Whether you like Bonds or not, the point is irrelevant. Desecrating something that obviously means so much to one individual is wrong. Its being needlessly cruel to somebody that Ecko, in reality, has never even met.

I'm not excusing ESPN or any other form of media that's bashed Bonds (as, I believe, they are to blame for the outcome of the vote, honestly), but its not even in the same ballpark. This would be like taking the game ball from Brett Favre's last game and branding a giant, red * into it. That's a bit f*cked up, don't you think?

Continue to wear Ecko at your own disgression. I refuse to support a product owned by somebody that will be needlessly cruel to his fellow human being purely for publicity's sake. I think its wrong and I hope Marc Ecko gets shot (no exhaggeration).

I don't think you understand how much Bonds is hated by virtually every baseball fan that doesn't root for the Giants.

That is unnessesary, though. They have no reason to hate him, as he has never been PROVEN to do anything wrong. I'm not going to go off on a tangent about him, but the fact that he has never been proven wrong, yet guys like Ankiel dont get as much press, even though it has been proven that they take steriods is rediculous.

Saying Bonds has never been proven to take steroids is like saying OJ was never proven to kill somebody or that LBJ was never proven to steal the 1948 senate election. You need a blindfold to not see the truth at this point.

32 wrote:There's a difference between bad-mouthing somebody (as the case in ESPN) and permanently scarring the physical representation of a man's life's work. Whether you like Bonds or not, the point is irrelevant. Desecrating something that obviously means so much to one individual is wrong. Its being needlessly cruel to somebody that Ecko, in reality, has never even met.

I'm not excusing ESPN or any other form of media that's bashed Bonds (as, I believe, they are to blame for the outcome of the vote, honestly), but its not even in the same ballpark. This would be like taking the game ball from Brett Favre's last game and branding a giant, red * into it. That's a bit f*cked up, don't you think?

Continue to wear Ecko at your own disgression. I refuse to support a product owned by somebody that will be needlessly cruel to his fellow human being purely for publicity's sake. I think its wrong and I hope Marc Ecko gets shot (no exhaggeration).

I don't think you understand how much Bonds is hated by virtually every baseball fan that doesn't root for the Giants.

That is unnessesary, though. They have no reason to hate him, as he has never been PROVEN to do anything wrong. I'm not going to go off on a tangent about him, but the fact that he has never been proven wrong, yet guys like Ankiel dont get as much press, even though it has been proven that they take steriods is rediculous.

Saying Bonds has never been proven to take steroids is like saying OJ was never proven to kill somebody or that LBJ was never proven to steal the 1948 senate election. You need a blindfold to not see the truth at this point.

But the fact that he has never tested positive is what gets me. If he ever does test positive, I will be the first one to jump off his bandwagon. It isnt because I'm a Giants fan, but from a baseball fans point of view. I really cant say anything about Sosa for the same reason, he hasnt tested positive.

32 wrote:There's a difference between bad-mouthing somebody (as the case in ESPN) and permanently scarring the physical representation of a man's life's work. Whether you like Bonds or not, the point is irrelevant. Desecrating something that obviously means so much to one individual is wrong. Its being needlessly cruel to somebody that Ecko, in reality, has never even met.

I'm not excusing ESPN or any other form of media that's bashed Bonds (as, I believe, they are to blame for the outcome of the vote, honestly), but its not even in the same ballpark. This would be like taking the game ball from Brett Favre's last game and branding a giant, red * into it. That's a bit f*cked up, don't you think?

Continue to wear Ecko at your own disgression. I refuse to support a product owned by somebody that will be needlessly cruel to his fellow human being purely for publicity's sake. I think its wrong and I hope Marc Ecko gets shot (no exhaggeration).

I don't think you understand how much Bonds is hated by virtually every baseball fan that doesn't root for the Giants.

That is unnessesary, though. They have no reason to hate him, as he has never been PROVEN to do anything wrong. I'm not going to go off on a tangent about him, but the fact that he has never been proven wrong, yet guys like Ankiel dont get as much press, even though it has been proven that they take steriods is rediculous.

Saying Bonds has never been proven to take steroids is like saying OJ was never proven to kill somebody or that LBJ was never proven to steal the 1948 senate election. You need a blindfold to not see the truth at this point.

But the fact that he has never tested positive is what gets me. If he ever does test positive, I will be the first one to jump off his bandwagon. It isnt because I'm a Giants fan, but from a baseball fans point of view. I really cant say anything about Sosa for the same reason, he hasnt tested positive.

Could you imagine the fiasco it would be if Bond did test positive? the only reason they haven't busted him is because Bud doesn't want to deal with it. He'll just treat this issue like all the other issues and hope it goes away. You need to catch up on some research if you still believe Bonds didn't cheat. Balco, his trainer, his "ex-girlfriend", his hat size, and the biggest piece of evidence of all... 73 HRS!!!!!! Your young sfsfsf, so I wont hold the fact that you grew up in the HR era against you (because I pretty much did as well), but hitting 60 HRs a season was not normal for the first 120+ years (or how ever long it has been around) of the MLB.

32 wrote:There's a difference between bad-mouthing somebody (as the case in ESPN) and permanently scarring the physical representation of a man's life's work. Whether you like Bonds or not, the point is irrelevant. Desecrating something that obviously means so much to one individual is wrong. Its being needlessly cruel to somebody that Ecko, in reality, has never even met.

I'm not excusing ESPN or any other form of media that's bashed Bonds (as, I believe, they are to blame for the outcome of the vote, honestly), but its not even in the same ballpark. This would be like taking the game ball from Brett Favre's last game and branding a giant, red * into it. That's a bit f*cked up, don't you think?

Continue to wear Ecko at your own disgression. I refuse to support a product owned by somebody that will be needlessly cruel to his fellow human being purely for publicity's sake. I think its wrong and I hope Marc Ecko gets shot (no exhaggeration).

I don't think you understand how much Bonds is hated by virtually every baseball fan that doesn't root for the Giants.

That is unnessesary, though. They have no reason to hate him, as he has never been PROVEN to do anything wrong. I'm not going to go off on a tangent about him, but the fact that he has never been proven wrong, yet guys like Ankiel dont get as much press, even though it has been proven that they take steriods is rediculous.

Saying Bonds has never been proven to take steroids is like saying OJ was never proven to kill somebody or that LBJ was never proven to steal the 1948 senate election. You need a blindfold to not see the truth at this point.

But the fact that he has never tested positive is what gets me. If he ever does test positive, I will be the first one to jump off his bandwagon. It isnt because I'm a Giants fan, but from a baseball fans point of view. I really cant say anything about Sosa for the same reason, he hasnt tested positive.

Could you imagine the fiasco it would be if Bond did test positive? the only reason they haven't busted him is because Bud doesn't want to deal with it. He'll just treat this issue like all the other issues and hope it goes away. You need to catch up on some research if you still believe Bonds didn't cheat. Balco, his trainer, his "ex-girlfriend", his hat size, and the biggest piece of evidence of all... 73 HRS!!!!!! Your young sfsfsf, so I wont hold the fact that you grew up in the HR era against you (because I pretty much did as well), but hitting 60 HRs a season was not normal for the first 120+ years (or how ever long it has been around) of the MLB.

I'm not an idiot. I know that Bonds probably did take steriods, but I am going to keep on cheering him until he tests positive. If you pick on Bonds, though, pick on other people, as well. Todd Helton hit 50 home runs five years ago. He hit 15 this year. Coincidence? Na.

32 wrote:There's a difference between bad-mouthing somebody (as the case in ESPN) and permanently scarring the physical representation of a man's life's work. Whether you like Bonds or not, the point is irrelevant. Desecrating something that obviously means so much to one individual is wrong. Its being needlessly cruel to somebody that Ecko, in reality, has never even met.

I'm not excusing ESPN or any other form of media that's bashed Bonds (as, I believe, they are to blame for the outcome of the vote, honestly), but its not even in the same ballpark. This would be like taking the game ball from Brett Favre's last game and branding a giant, red * into it. That's a bit f*cked up, don't you think?

Continue to wear Ecko at your own disgression. I refuse to support a product owned by somebody that will be needlessly cruel to his fellow human being purely for publicity's sake. I think its wrong and I hope Marc Ecko gets shot (no exhaggeration).

I don't think you understand how much Bonds is hated by virtually every baseball fan that doesn't root for the Giants.

That is unnessesary, though. They have no reason to hate him, as he has never been PROVEN to do anything wrong. I'm not going to go off on a tangent about him, but the fact that he has never been proven wrong, yet guys like Ankiel dont get as much press, even though it has been proven that they take steriods is rediculous.

Saying Bonds has never been proven to take steroids is like saying OJ was never proven to kill somebody or that LBJ was never proven to steal the 1948 senate election. You need a blindfold to not see the truth at this point.

But the fact that he has never tested positive is what gets me. If he ever does test positive, I will be the first one to jump off his bandwagon. It isnt because I'm a Giants fan, but from a baseball fans point of view. I really cant say anything about Sosa for the same reason, he hasnt tested positive.

Could you imagine the fiasco it would be if Bond did test positive? the only reason they haven't busted him is because Bud doesn't want to deal with it. He'll just treat this issue like all the other issues and hope it goes away. You need to catch up on some research if you still believe Bonds didn't cheat. Balco, his trainer, his "ex-girlfriend", his hat size, and the biggest piece of evidence of all... 73 HRS!!!!!! Your young sfsfsf, so I wont hold the fact that you grew up in the HR era against you (because I pretty much did as well), but hitting 60 HRs a season was not normal for the first 120+ years (or how ever long it has been around) of the MLB.

I'm not an idiot. I know that Bonds probably did take steriods, but I am going to keep on cheering him until he tests positive. If you pick on Bonds, though, pick on other people, as well. Todd Helton hit 50 home runs five years ago. He hit 15 this year. Coincidence? Na.

Don't recall ever saying I didn't blame others for nearly ruining the game, Big Mac, Jose Conseco, just to name a couple, are equally to blame. Though nobody will be as heavily scrutinized as Bonds because he now holds all of the HR records and will likely forever be remembered as the face of the steroid era and the man that tainted the most momentous records in sports.

I'm not saying that he didnt do them. I'm saying that he is unfairly in the spotlight because everyone does them. I bet you look at half the players that were good in the early 2000's, they were all juicing. I'm not defending them, but it was accepted then, so why be hard on them? More so, why be hard on Bonds?

sfsfsfgiants wrote:I'm not saying that he didnt do them. I'm saying that he is unfairly in the spotlight because everyone does them. I bet you look at half the players that were good in the early 2000's, they were all juicing. I'm not defending them, but it was accepted then, so why be hard on them? More so, why be hard on Bonds?

If all or your friends jump off a bridge than... Oh wait, so you saying that because a substantial percentage of players likely used illegal substances, it's OK for Bonds? The only people who accepted it was the players, teams, and the league. Not by the fans though, at least not the real fans and not the HR hungry idiots that call themselves fans. The fans never had a choice to accept it or not A) because we didn't know for sure and B) We never had a voice.

Some experts estimates the percentage of baseball players on steriods in the late 80's-2000's era to be in the upwards of 70-80%.

I wouldn't exactly call it "cheating" when 4 out of 5 guys are doing it. I also don't buy the OJ comparison, Pest. I'd liken America's recent crackdown on doing steriods to be on the same moral level as repremanding a few hundred people for stealing cable TV.

I also think its funny that everybody looked the other way on this issue (seriously, who DIDN'T think McGwire was on steriods when he broke the record?!), until the media circus turned it into a huge, squealing vagina storm. Steriods weren't unknown in the 80's and 90's... but, for some reason, they weren't a big deal until Barry Bonds (ritualistically hated by fans and the media alike) started breaking records. Its sheep mentality. I knew Barry used steriods a long time before he hit 756 home runs. And I also knew that countless others used them before him.

You can't look the other way on an issue, letting it grow and increase for generations, and than suddenly cry out ignorance. It just doesn't work that way. Some of us knew that baseball players were on 'roids 10 years ago. And a lot of us still don't care.

sfsfsfgiants wrote:I'm not saying that he didnt do them. I'm saying that he is unfairly in the spotlight because everyone does them. I bet you look at half the players that were good in the early 2000's, they were all juicing. I'm not defending them, but it was accepted then, so why be hard on them? More so, why be hard on Bonds?

If all or your friends jump off a bridge than... Oh wait, so you saying that because a substantial percentage of players likely used illegal substances, it's OK for Bonds? The only people who accepted it was the players, teams, and the league. Not by the fans though, at least not the real fans and not the HR hungry idiots that call themselves fans. The fans never had a choice to accept it or not A) because we didn't know for sure and B) We never had a voice.

"so why be hard on them?" BECAUSE THEY CHEATED!

Then why wont you be hard on every damn player that cheated?! Bonds is singled out. I know that he took them, I'm not denying that, but whenever you say steriods, people think Bonds. Why not Caminitti, Giambi, Neifi Perez, or McGwire?

sfsfsfgiants wrote:I'm not saying that he didnt do them. I'm saying that he is unfairly in the spotlight because everyone does them. I bet you look at half the players that were good in the early 2000's, they were all juicing. I'm not defending them, but it was accepted then, so why be hard on them? More so, why be hard on Bonds?

If all or your friends jump off a bridge than... Oh wait, so you saying that because a substantial percentage of players likely used illegal substances, it's OK for Bonds? The only people who accepted it was the players, teams, and the league. Not by the fans though, at least not the real fans and not the HR hungry idiots that call themselves fans. The fans never had a choice to accept it or not A) because we didn't know for sure and B) We never had a voice.

"so why be hard on them?" BECAUSE THEY CHEATED!

Then why wont you be hard on every damn player that cheated?! Bonds is singled out. I know that he took them, I'm not denying that, but whenever you say steriods, people think Bonds. Why not Caminitti, Giambi, Neifi Perez, or McGwire?

I see what you are saying, and agree with you and 32. But you have to understand that the figures that represents the rampant steroid use by MLB players are staggering, yet at the same time incredibly obscure. We will never know just who and how many players used, plus the MLB doesn't have any urge to find out, let alone disclose those numbers to the public (outside what congress mandates).

Now when it comes to Bonds being kind of the steroid martyr - Like 32 said, "[Bonds has been] ritualistically hated by fans and the media alike..." This coupled with the fact that he was also likely the best player to ever use 'roids, and he broke virtually every slugging record, than naturally he will been the target of most anti-steroid debates. Yes to a large extent Bonds has been singled out but this is a risk he was obviously willing to take. I mean, he knew his status with the media and opposing fans - he was already viewed as a villain, all of the speculation today is just a product of that.

I agree that all steroid users in professional sports should be punished equally, but do you seriously think that Neifi Perez would garner as much attention as Bonds or McGwire? If the MLB or someone released a list of the hundreds (if not thousands) of players that had used so you think the media would list those names or simply list off 10 or so big names? With stardom, with recognition, will always be followed by a heightened level of scrutiny.

I doubt Bonds will ever be found guilty, mainly because Selig and the MLB front office simply don't want to deal with it. I can't blame him, because no commish would.

32 wrote:I'd liken America's recent crackdown on doing steriods to be on the same moral level as repremanding a few hundred people for stealing cable TV.

By this, do you mean that taking steroids is of little moral significance (It doesn't matter much)? Or are you saying that the effort to crackdown on steroids is ineffective?

I as a fan of both the Giants and Barry Bonds, believe that the treatment he has received is deserved, and believe that he should endue further punishment based on his actions. An example must be made to prevent further tainting of the game, and if that means nullifying a great player's career - one of the best players of all time's career - for the sake of reconstructing the game's integrity, that would be fine by me. Because other players and future players must know that these actions will not be tolerated, and that they will pay a heavy price. Though I still believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, with little to know doubt we are all aware of Bond's actions. So while stripping his name from the record books isn't possible without sufficient evidence, further criticism by fans and media alike is warranted.